Talk me out of it.

13 Jan, 2006

While I love my Fuji F810, it has always suffered from a lack of filters. But this certainly isn’t the fault of the camera, no one expects that out of a pocketable point and shoot. Maybe its better to say that I suffer from a lack of filters. I find that many times the photo can’t wait for proper lighting (midday sun is my enemy) or I am just too impatient to wait (always more to see). This has always left me wanting a polarizing or UV filter. Hell, even a hood would be better than nothing. So why didn’t I pick up the E550 instead of the F810, and try to hack out some filters? It crossed the line from pocketable to pocketable if you have huge pockets. But lacking USB2 support and no marine case didn’t help either. Its been about a year and a half since I bought my F810, so I wanted to scan some of the ‘prosumer’ cameras to see if I was missing out. Not really. The ones that are rated highly are almost as big, or bigger than the Cannon Rebel XT (digital SLR). They also seem to be mostly 5MP. Now I know MP isn’t that big a deal, but my year and a half old camera does 12mp quite well by interpolating its two sensors, or 6mp by using the medium setting. It just seems like a big step back. This seems to suggest that if I’m looking to upgrade, a small DSLR is where its at. But I’m not convinced I want to go down that path. Features-wise, I would love to. Long exposures are sweet, easy manual focus, performance, etc. But I have to break some of my (mostly travel) rules to do so:

Don’t travel with expensive things, or more importantly, don’t have anything expensive exposed. Cameras on straps are nice targets. I also don’t want to carry a camera bag, as that is almost more of an invitation in some places. Perhaps I can get around this by hacking together some sort of a holster inside my messenger bag for the camera when not in use.
Pack light. The Rebel XT would add around 3/4 of a pound compared to my other camera when you include batteries and chargers. Not a big deal for my pack, but more of a size issue for my day bag. As said above, I may be able to bang something together on my existing bag.
Pack simple. Something as flexible as a SLR is an invitation for trouble. Extra lenses, filters, tripod, etc. Very easy for me to get carried away. I would have to stick to a single lense (probably the kit one), a couple filters (relatively small), and the same desktop tripod I already have.
Try to remain inconspicuous, or at least try not to be a stereotype. Of course, this isn’t always possible in a different culture. But a camera, especially one that looks somewhat pro, changes people’s perspective of you. I try to be a discrete tourist - only pull out the camera when I’m leaving a place, or saying good bye. With a pocket camera this was pretty easy. I’m not sure how much a bigger camera would change that.

So here are my questions to those that have made the jump. Oso, I’m looking at you.

Is it a pain in the ass to pack the SLR for the road?
Is it a pain in the ass to drag the SLR around on day trips?
Is it easy to become distracted by the camera (too many options), rather than using it as a tool?
How do you use & travel with SLRs in poorer locations?
Does having a bigger/pro camera get you restricted from any spots, or change people’s attitudes towards you?
Assuming I go the SLR route - are image stabilization lenses worth the extra weight, money, and pack space for travel? Or am I better off just with the kit 18-55, and maybe a 50 for indoors?

photography

Comments (19)

oso · 2006-01-16
Jesus, those are serious questions. I'll try give serious answers ... when it's not 1 a.m. Off to bed I go.
Andre · 2006-01-16
Hello Chris, here are my thoughts on the subject: Obviously you are not entirely happy with your camera and are looking for an upgrade. I am travelling with a Canon 20D, which is by no means a light camera. I can understand your need to remain inconspicuous. For that reason I don't travel with a special photo bag, but throw all my camera equipment into a normal backpack. I then close it with a backpack lock and pay special attention in a crowd. If I have the camera out, I usually wear it under my jacket. Everyone can see the bulge but noone knows whats really there and it would be hard to pry the camera from my claws. The 20D can take some serious beating. I have already a couple of scratches and marks on it, because I don't use a camera bag. Here are ansers to your questions above: 1. Other than that I don't consider it a pain. 2. I only travel once to most places and it costs a lot of money to go there so I want the best possible pictures. 3. Absolutely not. In fact, due to the capability to shoot RAW, you only have to watch your exposure. Things like white balance can be done later on the PC. RAW files even allow to recover some badly exposed pictures. The possibility to get decent pictures at ISO-3200 let you shot some pictures handheld that would not be possible with point and shoot: http://www.aguntherphotography.com/galleries/south_america/peru/lima/catacombs.html http://www.aguntherphotography.com/galleries/south_america/peru/cusco/xmas.html 4. Absolutely. Just don't parade it around. 5. Yes, people come running and asking if I want to shoot them for money. I also get looked at funny if I shoot in some situations and one guy in Hawaii was yelling at me, thinking I was making tons of money with pictures from HIS waterfall. 6. I don't have em and I don't think they are necessary. My camera does fairly low noise, even at higher ISO, so I crank the ISO up if I have to. If you have that much money to spend, get a faster lens (e.g. f/2.8 vs. an IS Lens with f/4.5). The two stops you gain from IS are eaten up by the poorer glass. For travel an Ultra Zoom may be advisable (I bought the Tamron 24-200mm for my wife). Personally I use two lenses 24-85mm and 70-200mm. Ultra Zooms tend to be less sharp. The sharpest Lenses are Prime Lenses (I have a 50mm Prime). Hope this helps. Andre
Andre · 2006-01-16
There are many more things to consider though and ultimately you have to find out what you like best. In a lot of places (like Nightclubs) I would not want to carry a DSLR. But I have found that there is nothing really worth shooting there anyways. I still don't own a P&S. I have a bunch of filters, but I find myself only using the Polarizers recently. For travel it is also advisable to have portable storage. I am using two image tanks to back up my photos in the field. I will have a review section on all my equipment on my website soon and a new tutorial on how to record scenes with very high dynamic range. All of those techniques require the capability to record RAW files. With DSLR you have to think about cleaning the CCD also. Another thought on 12MP. If you read some of the reviews of the Canon 1DS Mark II, you will find a lot of people claiming that this camera pushes the resolution of the Lens. My 20D has half the resolution of the 1DsM2(16.6MP) and half the Chip size. I therefore think, that I have similar problems. If you look at some of those lenses for the 1DsM2, you will see how big they are. A good lens can do maybe 70lines/mm. Now if you look at your 12MP P&S, check out the lens! The Lens will NEVER resolve 12MP. This is a Marketing Gag. I think any P&S above 5MP is severely limited by its Lens. There is a good reason people are willing to pay thousands of Dollars for a Canon L Lens. It is always the weakest chain that limits your image aquisition system. Also, if my CMOS Imager is 24x18mm with 8.5MP, the Pixel is about 7.2umx7.2um. A P&S has pixels of a fraction of the size. This means each pixel captures less light -> They are amplified more -> You get more noise (Basically with Semiconductors, thermal noise is proportional to 1/sqrt(Area). These are some thoughts on the techinical aspects. In the End you have to make this decision with your guts. Andre
Gustavo · 2006-01-16
I'll be keeping an eye on this post because I think I want one of those cameras too. Have you seen some of the pics Oso takes? I wonder though...is it the camera or is it the person that takes the picture?
ChrisN · 2006-01-17
Great comments, Andre. 3) I can actually shoot in RAW with my existing camera, but haven't for the most part for one main reason: No compression, the shots are around 20mb each. However, I believe the XT's are more like 7mb each because of compression, which is certainly more manageable. I believe the XT's raw files are much easier to work with as well. But I'm also not quite sure how much post processing I'm willing to do. I'd have no problem doing some adjustments on my better photos, but I'm not sure I want to commit to processing *all* my photos. Out of all the photos on my site, I can count on one hand all of the pictures I have cropped or adjusted. That probably speaks volumes of my laziness :) The higher usable ISO will be nice, I can do 800 ISO on my current camera, but I'd guess only about 50% of the photos are worth keeping. The XT on the other hand is supposed to be decent up to 1600. 6) You're right, I'm probably going to want to get a zoom at some point, as the kit lense is 18-55. My existing camera is roughly 32.5 - 130mm (F2.8-F5.6). If I didn't get another lense, it would be a step forward in wide angle, but a big step back in telephoto. However, I would guess 85% of my photos are using the widest angle, so even just the kit lense would probably be a better choice for most of my pics. - In Peru I had decent luck getting my photos burned to CD, but that isn't always going to be available. I'm going to need to get an img tank eventually. Another plus on the XT, the CF memory cards it uses are much cheaper than my current format (xD cards). - You're right, good thoughts on the pixel-war. My camera certainly isn't taking legitimate 12mp images (though it does seem to be better quality than just the 6mp). The only real complaint I have about the lense (considering it's cost & size) is chromatic aberration on high contrast subjects, but that is hardly unique. In fact, I'll probably see a bit of that with the kit lense on the XT. One thing I forgot to add to the post about things that would change is movies/videos/sound. Hardly the worry of pros, I know :). But, I have found it useful a couple of times: Parade videos in Peru. I'm wondering if burst mode and something like a small sound recorder (probably just my mp3 player) would suffice for the loss of movie mode? Maybe this is another reason to look at prosumer fixed lense cameras...
Andre · 2006-01-19
Hello Chris, 3) You can always set up default actions in Photoshop. That is what I do to 70% of my Photos. I stuff all RAW files into a folder, push a button, get some coffee and when I come back I have a new folder with jpegs (still looking better than the ones processed by the camera). The ones that need more care are then done by hand. The only drawback is when you want to post pictures to your blog while you are travelling. For that reason I sometimes shot jpg+raw with a single snap (not sure if the 350D can do this, the 300D could not do seperate files, the 20D does it just fine) ISO: The 20D can do 3200 and with a Firmware Hack I brought my 300D to 3200 too. You can do 6400 if you like: (Shot with -1EV and correct this in the raw viewer, this will essentially give you one stop on the ISO, I will write a tutorial later) 6) The Point I wanted to stress: With a DSLR the choice of Lens is equally as important as the choice of the camera body. This is another reason for me to choose Canon. - Image Tank Reviews coming up on my site in a week or two ;-) It is nice not having to think about how many pictures to take and not having to delete a single frame in the field. NEVER EVER JUDGE AN EXPOSURE BY THE LOOKS OF THE IMAGE ON THE LCD!!!! I can not stress this enough. If you want to know if you exposed right, use your histogramm. Monitors can be too bright and do not replicate true colors. -I can see similar effects on my canon L lens, but I believe its "bleeding" of the CMOS Sensor (brighter pixels leak into darker pixels, esp. on CCD). Maybe some of that is true for your P&S. -Videos: The burst mode is no replacement for this. I have a mini DV camera that I take with me for videos, but I rather have good pictures than o.k. pictures + videos (since I can't do both I mostly photograph). If it is important to you, maybe you should consider the Sony Sony DSC-F828 although I would never by such a camera myself (fixed Lens + crappy Signal to Noise ratio), but hey how many Lenses do you want to carry while travelling anyways? If you never plan to print larger than 18inch, who cares. Another good point outlined by Gustavo: It is always the Photographer who makes good photos. Nevertheless, the same photo can look a tiny notch better if processed correctly ;-) If you want to do very large scale prints, use the technique I used for my 222 Megapixel Image you saw. To sum it up: For a higher price and more weight you get slightly better outputs + you will be able to shoot in some extreme situations like high ISO or pictures taken in rapid succession: http://www.aguntherphotography.com/hawaii/maui/beaches_sunsets/photos/photo_1.html?pid=853 There is an ongoing war between supporters of both groups (DSLR, all others). The discussions will never end and there is no defenite answer. Find out whats important to you and if it is worth the steep price to you.
Andre · 2006-01-19
I forgot to mention there are other things a heavy camera can have its advantages: Tracking moving subjects to blur the background while having the subject sharp: http://www.aguntherphotography.com/2005/08/indy-grand-prix.html In General any action Photography will benefit from the extremely short lag time (time from pressing the shutter until the picture is taken), which is not noticable on my 20D but can be long on a P&S. The images of the jump and the car were shot with a telephoto lens by the way.
ChrisN · 2006-01-19
Andre, thanks again for the comments. - Regarding RAW & default actions, do you usually separate your photos out based on white balance or whatever, then run different scripts on them? I'm just thinking about indoor vs. outdoor shots that would be in the same pile of files. I'm not too worried about having access to the jpgs while on travel, but I believe the 350 does do RAW+jpg. - Gotcha on the lens. I'm expecting that to be my weak link until I figure out what I want to upgrade to. I will probably start out on the cheap & small end - 18-55 kit, and maybe a used EF 50mm f/1.8 for indoors. - Videos. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced I'm really just wanting the sound. There are better ways to get that than expecting that out of my camera. - Response time. You are right, my camera is on the better end of P&S in terms of start-up, focus lag, and capture time, but the 350 would beat it hands down.
Andre · 2006-01-26
- No. I usually seperate them by ISO. If I shot a picture at a very high ISO I do more noise reduction and go a little easier on the sharpening. For low ISO I do no noise reduction and very agressive sharpening. Otherwise I don't overprocess my images, so there is no need to sort them. All I do is add a bit velvia: http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_81/essay.html (go easy on that one, otherwise you loose some sharpness in the highlights and your pictures look overprocessed). It took me a very very long time to fine tune my actions, so forgive me for not posting everything here ;-). I did fork out the Money for Photoshop CS2. Even though it hurt, it was the best investment in Software I ever made. -Yeah but for travel I find 55 too short. For a long time I had a Quantaray 55-200. It was a rather cheap lense but gave me a lot of reach and I have shot some really cool pictures with it: http://www.aguntherphotography.com/california/yosemite/photos/photo_3.html (This photo really required 200mm). Its a realatively cheap investment and worth the money until you are ready for more. - I went to my local Best Buy, where I could hold the D350 and the 20D in my Hands and try them out. After that I was ready to fork out the money for the 20D. If you plan to hold on to it for a long time, consider this: The shutter reliability on the D350 is 50,000 shots on the 20D 200,000 shots. Most people don't shoot that many photos though. I like it to be sturdy and I don't mind the weight.
Andre · 2006-01-26
I seem to remember things after I posted. An edit button would be nice ;-) -ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) has auto adjustments that work for 80-90% of the pictures and do a great job getting default conversions set up. Most other RAW converters (Rawshooter) offer similar features. Despite the Hype, I am no fan of Rawshooter as the pictures tend to look overprocessed. But you can get the Essentials Version for free, can't beat that price.
ChrisN · 2006-01-27
Great info on the photo processing, thanks! Youre right, I still need to do the hold-in-my-hands test before buying anything.
Nathan · 2006-02-02
Ok, here goes. I crossed over to a digital SLR about 6 months ago. I spent the 6 months before that doing research on the technology and making lists (literally built spreadsheets in Excel) to compare the "value" I'd get out of the equipment. I know, spreadsheets are a bit extreme, but there are just too many options to keep in my head. I ended up buying a Canon 10D on ebay for $600 so I could invest more of my budget in lenses. As far as I'm concerned, the interchangeable lenses are much more valuable than a digital SLR body. I'll upgrade the body later, but my lenses I'll keep. You can check out my photos on Flickr here; I even have sets for each lens. Let me answer your questions from the original post. I now carry a Canon 10D (larger older version of 20D), wide angle zoom (Canon17-40mmL), portrait (Tamron90mmMacro), fast prime (Canon50mmf1.8), flash (550exSpeedlite w/ Gary Fong Lightsphere diffuser), and tripod (Cullman2903 that I got for $20 but it sucks) all together in a Lowepro Orion AW bag. I bought everything used (except the 50mm 'cause its cheap anyway). Now there just is no conspicuous way to carry all that. Combining the quality, options and flexibility, I decided to take the plunge. BUT, on the other end of the spectrum, I almost bought a Canon PowerShot S2 IS because it does everything all in one small package. For fun with friends, tourism and travel, it is a big advantage to have something small; you can just hand it to a stranger to take your photo without explaining autofocus points or exposure to a total stranger. On safety, I don't let it stop me from shooting anything. On access, it is hard to smuggle a big dSLR into a high profile concert, but thats about it. On image stabilization, I wanted to get IS lenses but it just was out of my initial budget. My advice is to focus on what type of photography you want to do. For documentary/photojournalism the wide angle is a must (which requires ultra-wide lenses on dSLRs Canon Digital Rebel XT with Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS USM ... I didn't go with this because of the EF-S lens mount (only fit XT and 20D). My rationale was that the EF standard mount lenses are more universal, but now I think that the future is bright for Canon's EF-S mounts. They continue to invest in new digital gear and it'll only get better. Well, I hope some of that is helpful. Any questions, let me know.
Nathan · 2006-02-02
I meant to link this as a suggestion: Canon Digital Rebel XT with Canon 17-85mm EF-S IS USM
Andre · 2006-02-03
Nathan, I agree with you on almost every aspect, but the EF-S. Even though my 20D fully supports EF-S lenses, I got rid of all of those and I will only buy EF lenses, even if this means I can't get the wideangle one. I can still do wideangle shots (I simply stitch them together). Here is my reasoning: As you mentioned, the Lenses will stay with me longer than the Camera, but who knows what the future holds in stock. The EF-S lenses are only suitable for Cameras with APS-C type of sensor (the one with 1.6x crop factor). For full frame sensors, their won't work (because they don't open far enough) and thus those cameras (like the 5D) won't even accept the EF-S. From a standpoint of Noise I am afraid that the pixel sizes can not shrink that much anywyas (and if they could, the lens couldn't resolve this - see my post above). So future high res cameras will most likely be full-frame cameras. If you upgrade to a full-frame, your EF-S becomes worthless. The Autofocus on my 20D is at least as good as a P&S camera. If I hand mine to other tourists, I only tell them what button to push. I rarely do this anyways. Most people have to pose in front of everything. I am not one of them. I rather enjoy the scene without anyone in it. As usual, compelling photographs can be made with any camera. This one was taken with a 1.3MP Kodak DC240 a long time ago (my first digicam at a very steep price ;-) ): http://www.aguntherphotography.com/usa_west/misc/photos/photo_1.html Andre
ChrisN · 2006-02-03
Hi Nathan, thank you for the great info. Lots to think about. You are right about the lenses, Andre, I can't see how full frame digital sensors won't eventually trickle down. I'd kill for a 5d :). However, I also don't see myself buying any real expensive lenses, so I'm not super concerned about future use. Probably famous last words, right? :) At this point I think I'm looking at three options: - Rebel with the 17-85 EF-S IS USM - This was at the top of my list, it seems like the best solution for me & covers most of the range I want. The only thing I am concerned about is that the lens isn't that great on the wide end - seems like a fair bit of chromatic aberration for a lens at that price point. I'm also concerned that it might be too slow, but I guess that’s what you have to put up with for the IS. The primes look sweet, but I'm not willing to spend that kind of money yet. I'm also considering the Tamron 17-200, it seems to a decent bargain lens to start, as long as you get a good one (QC seems to be an issue). - Wait a bit and pick up a last gen model. Supposedly, the replacement for the 20D is coming out in march, so there might be some used 20D/XT's when people move to the latest & greatest. - Go the compact route with something like the Panasonic LX1. The LX1 seems like a great camera for me, wide angle, 16x9 sensor, decent lens, IS, RAW, small size, etc. But it has one glaring issue, noise above 100 ISO. I might be able to mitigate that by shooting higher ISOs in raw and using something like noise ninja on them.
Nathan · 2006-02-04
Andre, you're absolutely right about EF-S vs EF and upgrading to full-frame sensor (I only bought EF lenses myself for this very reason). But, knowing now that my budget won't allow me to get a 5D any time soon, and how valuable this gear is on eBay, I probably would have gone for that compromise of RebelXT with the 17-85 IS simply because I would enjoy the versatility, and eventually sell the kit and upgrade. Either way, I agree with you. That Panasonic LX1 looks pretty nice, too. Thanks for the link to noise ninja, I'll be on the lookout for a copy ;)
ChrisN · 2006-02-07
Thanks for everyone's comments, they were a lot of help. I'm going to go with option number 2 - Wait a bit and see what gets released in the next month or two, and go from there. One thing seems certain though, I really don't see myself getting a non-pocketable P&S. If I take size out of the equation, I'm much better off just going with a DSLR. The flexibility they offer seems to be worth the extra price & hassle.
Andre · 2006-02-11
I agree the 17-85 Canon lens is a great deal. You will be very happy with this combination. Never by a Lens on ebay though. Not all lenses are manufactured to the same standards. You may even get grey market imports, but more important: A lot of lenses have either front focus or rear focus problems. A new lens can be easily sent back to the manufacturer and replaced, but not one bought on ebay. Chances are that the reason for selling it on ebay is one of those (e.g. grey market item that can not be returned). I usually order from Amazon/Adorma or go down to the Wolf Camera store. I admit it costs more, but believe me, I have made my bad experience on ebay. Eventually you end up loosing money by having to buy twice. To test the focus, I recommend using Aperture Priority (at the largest aperture / lowest number), go out and do test-shots. Make sure you focus on different distances from very close to infinity while always having something that is closer and further away from where you focussed on in the picture. Then look at it at full resolution, trying to determine if what you focussed on is the sharpest part of the picture. I ruined most of my hawaii pictures by not doing this and relying on a very good lens that I bought on ebay just before, but had a front focus problem (something you won't see on the display). Very disappointing.
ChrisN · 2006-02-14
Great info on purchasing. Thanks again, Andre.

Worth the wait

Oh, Canada.